My daughter's world

After ruminating on this issue for several months I'm openly declaring that for my own sake, for the sake of my daughter(s), nieces, and females everywhere I will no longer hinder women by being silent regarding harmful aspects of feminism. The women that I love and respect deserve better. It is education that changes the world, therefore:

I will teach my daughter about sex privilege. Both sexes have accepted via tradition things that are known as privileged to their sex. That feminists only focus on the male aspect is sexist and hinders social redefinition of tradition. Privilege is given to the opposite sex by both sexes since time immemorial. The societal norm is a reflection of the sum total of all the negotiations between couples. To redefine privilege, teach positive negotiation skills to girls.

I will teach against the idea of "The Patriarchy". Feminists hang upon this phantom all real and perceived inequalities, the direct result of which is the disempowerment and victimization of both sexes, but especially women. Recognition of inequality is a good thing. Expecting equality is not. Equality is a function of compared ability. People with real ability do not allow obstacles to prevent their work. Those people do not give away their power to act to "The Patriarchy".

I will teach my daughter humanism. All people should be treated equal until they demonstrate that they are not. To treat a stupid person as though they were Einstein is insulting to everyone and beneficial to none. Even worse, feminist altruism by default condones the inequality they purport to combat via the ideas of privilege and patriarchy.

I will teach my daughter to own herself. A person who expects society to guarantee their feelings is a monster. Each person owns their own emotions, thoughts, and actions. If an individual feels threatened by another despite no actual harm against them, then it is only the responsibility of that individual to act to fix their situation. A person who cannot own themselves is worthless to society.

I will teach my daughter why 'rape culture' is a lie. Unlike murder, which in a few situations is totally justified, rape is never justified and always unethical, immoral, evil. To state that a 'rape culture' exists (as defined by feminism) and still condone the continuation of that society is reprehensible. If it is as bad as feminists claim then it would be perfectly insane to continue living in a place where a violent trespass against your person was not only likely, but encouraged and expected. So either feminists are insane, or 'rape culture' is a lie.

I will teach my daughter that through rational self interest she can readily reject any idea that hampers her. This precept alone will cause her to reject the feminist ideologue who would claim her only because of her physiology. Not because of her mind, her ideas, her perseverance, her strength. My daughter will recognize that it is impossible for a powerful self actualized person to accept feminism, theism, altruism or any other relic of a bygone age. Willfully becoming a victim can lead only to destruction of rational thought and action.

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Yes, cultures and societies do that. But a feminist, supposedly standing for true equality, has no excuse for holding that same opinion.

As for the rest, check your figures again. Women far outnumber men in school to obtain higher education. And I am fine with that - more than fine actually. But feminists need to acknowledge this and other victories instead of just quoting the party line.

The problem is that cultures and societies often "separate people based on sex, not merit", to perpetuate and preserve male privilege.

As for "intellectual or professional credentials", there can be multiple, entrenched obstacles to obtaining them even without explicit "no girls/women allowed" rules. (See Neil deGrasse Tyson's observation on why more men than women are in science. "I've never been female. But I have been black my whole life... there are many similar social issues related to access to equal opportunity..." and he proceeds to tell how his path was a decided uphill battle compared to that of white boys who are "expected" to be able to become scientists.)

Another, no less important, part of women and men being treated equally, is being able to live in the relative safety and assurance that men take for granted, an invisible privilege that ought to be a universal for people of any gender. The article "A Gentleman's Guide to Rape Culture" raised my consciousness about that. I promise, it's worth overcoming your reservations about the title and reading it.

Again you are separating people based on sex, not merit. You say 'ask her if she feels she stands on level ground with men.' How is that even remotely a useful question?

I contend that the right question is to ask 'are you treated equal relative to others in your peer group?' Feel is a subjective word while treated is (more) objective. A peer group being those who hold the same or similar intellectual or professional credentials.

Čenek, You ignore Ruth's words at your own peril. Your daughter is under threat her entire life and I hope she never has the experience of being raped, or molested, or exploited or manipulated or work for less pay than a man doing the same job, or be replaced by a man for a job for no reason other than her gender.

I wish your daughter well. I hope your training includes how to think for herself and critically. When she is grown and had some life experiences, ask her if she feels she stands on level ground with men. Your pronouncement of women moving away from threat is just simply wrong.

Michael, education and critical thinking is the great emancipator. Some might object to the methodology you used (mail fraud is a felony in the United States) but I do not: there was no harm. It sounds as though you helped that person, though we'll never know to what degree. But I'd say that the effort was worth it.

Here is a story from my own experience. Once I ran onto a prostitute who was very sincere in wanting to get away from her abusive pimp. She wasn't comfortable in this profession and the guy took all her money. She would just disappear and go back to the west coast but she had no money to do so. I told her what to do.

These were the days in which you could order airline tickets over the phone and have them mailed to you. Also, with your ticket in hand no one demanded that you show ID to get on a plane.

I had the young lady pick a residence where she could watch the mailbox on the porch by the door. A residence whre she knew the "Smiths" were not around much. Watch for the time the mailman arrives, usually about the same time every day. Order your ticket for "Mrs. Smith" over the phone and then be there daily to check that box. When the ticket comes quickly pick it out of the box and leave. Now you are on your way.

A short time later I noticed that this prostitute was no longer on that street corner. Anything could have happened, but I like to think that "she flew away." Is this a thing for a lay minister to have done? However you see it, this is proof that you can empower women.

Ruth, I'm very sorry to say that I have to ignore much of what you wrote as it is self-refuting. For the sake of brevity I will confine myself to responding to a few of your points.

You say, "Women can't just move away to a safer area." That is ridiculous. Saying that a woman "can't" is pejoratively sexist and disempowers women. A person can always choose. Just ask the holocaust survivors. For shame, Ruth.

You say, "Don't you notice that your language, and "reasoning" gives your daughter the message that women are worthless and insane?" No actually what I said was that people are worthless and insane if they do not own themselves and act in a way contrary to their own best interests. I don't care what sex they are if a person acts like that, then that is my opinion of them.

You say that I am 'in denial about what life is like for women." On some level you may be right in that I do not acknowledge that the experience of a female as a person is fundamentally different from the experience of a male as a person. A rational person is rational, irregardless of sex.

What I wrote was non sex specific. Where I wrote "individuals" you claim I wrote "women". Where I wrote "person" you read "women". It seems you are highly biased as seeing women as victims, Ruth.

In fact I am arguing that what applies to one sex, applies equally to the other sex. Everyone has choices. No one is entitled. Personal responsibility is paramount.

You say, "I've never heard of non-altruistic humanism." Well actually Ruth it exists under many philosophical labels. Look up the definitions of the word altruism, and then read up on the philosophies of Consequentialism or Objectivism. Altruism is isn't required for humanism and what is more there are good arguments that altruism inhibits humanism.

Women can't just move away to a safer area when they're threatened with rape. If they earn less then men for the same job, don't they have less money for rent? Rape happens in nice neighborhoods too.

We don't feel threatened "despite no actual harm", women are literally under threat. Why is it the responsibility of women to "fix their situation" when men are the criminals rapists? You're blaming women for being assaulted, then claiming they made themselves victims willfully. Is this reason? Do you blame murder victims for getting themselves killed? How about depositors in banks which are robbed?

Don't you notice that your language, and "reasoning" gives your daughter the message that women are worthless and insane?

A person who cannot own themselves is worthless to society.

You're telling her that, until she's personally raped, if she feels threatened she's not owning her own feelings. You're saying if she feels threatened, she's insane.

The foundation of humanism, Čenek, before reason and logic, is empathy. If you can't first imagine yourself in another's situation, then exercises in logic about how they ought to feel are moot.

You are in denial about what life is like for women.

I notice that you also count altruism as a relic of a bygone age. I've never heard of non-altruistic humanism.

Joan, yet again your copy pasta speaks only to rape. The data just doesn't lead to the conclusion you (and others) want it to. And despite my careful investigation, in even the best, most persuasive studies I haven't found anything stronger than correlation. Correlation does not equal causation. Showing that rape exists is a far cry from showing that rape is encouraged, condoned, and prevalent. Likewise, prevalence falls within a wide definition margin.

What percentage of a population must condone, endorse, or encourage something before it is widely acknowledged as prevalent? This ambiguity contributes to how 'rape culture' is so poorly defined. It is clear that prevalence isn't homogeneous in nature.If it exists, which it very well may, then it very likely will not be in the form claimed by the feminist definition as written on radfemhub and wikipedia.It is malarkey.

B Fletcher, you set up a straw man again conflating capital threats with non-capital threats. There is no need to set up a false analogy - speak to the issue directly. I stand by my assessment of insanity. I don't care if you disagree: show something concrete and I'm willing to investigate and be corrected. But before you argue on this topic again take a critical look at the facts. Joan has given enough links here to keep you busy for a few hours if you critically examine the source studies.